Study on the Opinions of Teachers and Students from Sports Program High Schools, Regarding the School Subject “Sport Training Theory”

Mariana Ardelean

doi:10.18662/lumproc/sec-iasr2019/04

Mariana Ardelean University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology of Târgu Mureș, Gh. Marinescu, 38, 540139, Târgu Mures, Romania

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18662/lumproc/sec-iasr2019/04

Keywords: Sport Training Theory, teachers, students, curriculum products, teaching strategies.

Abstract

The initiated study was done to determine the opinions of a number of 33 teachers from Romanian sports program high schools, who teach the school subject “Sport Training Theory” (STT) from 9^th to 12^th graders, in order to outline the methodological coordinates according to which they do their activity. Due to the fact that all the efforts in the teaching activity are (and must remain!) centered on the students, in this research it was also considered relevant to know the opinions of a number of 103 students from vocational profile, interviewed at the end of 10^th grade. It was chosen this level of study out of two considerations: after two years of intense studying of the analyzed school subject, the expressed opinions could have a higher degree of objectivity, and the expressed statements in this matter could constitute important themes and guiding points in the subsequent methodological measures to be taken, which have as target to shape up competences and to improve the teaching-learning-assessing strategies. Questioning the two categories of subjects (teachers and students) has led, on one hand, to the illustration of the teaching framework in which the STT school subject is quartered, in relation to the values and attitudes that it is expected to be achieved at the end of a learning cycle and graduating the high school sports sections, and on the other hand, to the identification of deficient/ disturbing aspects which leave their mark on the quality and efficiency of the teaching act in comparison with the real needs and expectations that the sports program high school students claim.

References

[1] Albulescu I. Pragmatica predării. Activitatea profesorului între rutină şi creativitate. Piteşti: Paralela 45; 2009.176 p.
[2] Anghelache C. Statistică generală. Teorie şi aplicaţii. Bucureşti: Economică; 1999.336 p.
[3] Bondrea A. Sociologia culturii. Bucureşti: „Fundaţia România de Mâine”; 2006. 357 p.
[4] Cucoş C. Pedagogie. # Ediţia a II-a revăzută şi adăugită. Iaşi: Polirom; 2006, 464 p.
[5] Hatos A. Sport şi societate. Introducere în sociologia sportului. Oradea: Universităţii din Oradea; 2011.155 p.
[6] Giddens A.Sociologie. Bucureşti: BIC ALL; 2000. p. 696.
[7] Labăr AV.SPSS pentru ştiinţele educației. Metodologia analizei datelor în cercetarea pedagogică. Iaşi: Polirom; 2008.352 p.
[8] Ministerul Educaţiei şi Cercetării. Anexa nr. 3 la OMECT nr. 5723 /23.12.2003 privind aprobarea disciplinelor de specialitate din curriculumul diferenţiat pentru claselea IX-a - a X-a, filiera vocaţională, profil sportiv; 2003.
[9] Popa M. Statistică pentru psihologie. Teorie şi aplicaţii SPSS.# Ediţia II-a revăzută şi adăugită. Iaşi: Polirom; 2008. 368 p.
[10] Radu IT, Ezechil L. Didactica. Teoria instruirii. Piteşti: Paralela 45; 2006. 312 p.
[11] Rotaru T, Iluţ P. Ancheta sociologică şi sondajul de opinie. Iaşi: Polirom, 2006. 280 p.
[12] Scheau I. Gândirea critică: metode active de predare-învățare. Cluj-Napoca: Dacia; 2004. 116 p.